Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.3.2-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I should like firstly to say to you, Mr President, fellow Members, that I have greatly valued this debate. I have found it really very interesting and I believe that it will be extremely useful. We have not wasted our time, and I have been able to construct a much more specific idea both of your feelings on the subject and of the consequent difficulties in taking the matter forward.
In point of fact, the debate has confirmed the ambiguities that remain and to which a number of you have referred. The Rapkay report is obviously wise and intelligent and seeks to establish a balance. It is also the case, however, that it does not fully engage with a number of issues, and this ought, moreover, to give you a better understanding of the difficulties that the Commission has experienced for years in defining the matter and supplying more precise definitions. That is because this is a complex matter. Let us acknowledge the fact. Even considered in a specific spatio-temporal framework, the issue is a difficult one because it involves reconciling principles that sometimes appear contradictory. That is the way it is when it comes to the principles of the internal market and of competition – principles that are essential to our Community, that are inscribed in the Treaties and that the Commission is – let us be clear - absolutely obliged to respect, as it is obliged to respect the principles of state intervention and of the general interest.
If, however, the issue is already difficult in itself, it proves to be still more complex when placed in the developing context of space and time. As a number of you have emphasised, the fact is that time constantly moves on, what with structural changes to our markets, increased pressure from international competition and major technological change. In territorial terms, too, the situation varies a lot from one Member State to another, and there may indeed be big differences between levels of intervention at national, regional and even local level. The issue is therefore extremely complex, which is why it is so difficult, or even impossible, to come up with a standard response according to the ‘one size fits all’ principle.
Does that mean that nothing can be done at European level? I do not agree. On the contrary. How, though, are we to approach the matter? Let us look first at what must not be done. I believe that there are two extreme approaches that must be avoided at all costs. The first consists in saying that services of general interest fall completely outside Europe’s remit. They are none of its business. That is not the case. Services of general interest are, in fact, our business because they are at the heart of our social model, and we want to preserve them. Europe therefore has something to say about the matter.
The other radical approach consists in saying go ahead and regulate matters, as it will enable us – and people have been quite candid about this – to resist what is stated in the Treaties, the idea being that the Treaties tend rather to focus on liberalisation whereas the time has now come to question that perspective by enacting regulations opposed to the rules of the single market and of competition. That is something that we cannot accept. The single market is our great strength and one of the great successes of European integration.
If, however, we avoid these two extreme positions – which is to say that of absolutely minimum European intervention and that of a very high degree of intervention to offset the effects of the market - what can we do? Having followed this debate, I think that the principles that I stated at the beginning and to which, moreover, the Rapkay report refers provide us with the solution. I would therefore put the following suggestion to you, ladies and gentlemen. Instead of focusing on an abstruse debate on the usefulness or otherwise of a framework directive about which, as the debate has shown, there is obviously no consensus, why not focus on the substance, as the majority of Parliament seems to want to do? What is the agreement about? It is about subsidiarity, the desirability of which we all accept. I believe that the national and local levels should be respected where this subject is concerned. Compatibility between the internal market and the public interest must be ensured in every case where an apparent contradiction is noted.
Moreover – and this is, in my view, perhaps the most important point – there is the issue of what are the essential features of public services. We all want them to be of high quality, to have a good quality-price ratio and to be accessible to all. The need to modernise public services can therefore be accepted as a matter of principle, but without forgetting these essential factors. Finally, mention must be made of the need for increased legal certainty.
Having met the various groups and heard the speeches by Mr Rapkay, Mrs Thyssen and many others, I think I can say that, if we agree about these four points, we do have a basic consensus on this matter and prospects for compromise. I think it is possible to take this matter forward while sticking to those principles of ours that define our European model: those of the internal market, respect for the rules of competition and defence of the general interest. The communication we shall present will be along those lines, and I believe that the debate and my presence in this House today will help us fine-tune our ideas. We shall propose something that will demonstrate that we have made progress in our thinking and, I hope, in our decisions concerning such an important subject that is at the very heart of what matters to Europe and to our fellow citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples